Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 4043–4050 | Cite as

Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression—a split-mouth randomised clinical study

  • Yasser HaddadiEmail author
  • Golnosh Bahrami
  • Flemming Isidor
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this prospective in vivo study was to evaluate the accuracy of the marginal and internal fit of crowns based on conventional impression (CI) or intraoral scan (IOS) in a randomised, split-mouth set-up.

Materials and methods

Nineteen patients needing full coverage crowns, fitting a split-mouth design, were provided with two lithium disilicate crowns: one based on a CI and one based on an IOS. The marginal and internal accuracy of the crowns were assessed with the replica technique and clinically using a modified California Dental Association (CDA) quality evaluation system.

Results

At the preparation margin, the median gap was 60 μm for IOS and 78 μm for CI. For the other points, the median gap ranged from 91 to 159 μm for IOS and 109 to 181 μm for CI. The accuracy of the IOS was statistically significantly better at all point except at the cusp tip. All crowns where rated R or S at both the 6- and 12-month follow-up appointments. The results for the clinical evaluation with CDA for marginal integrity showed no statistically significant difference between the two impression methods at both the 6- and 12-month evaluations.

Conclusions

Crowns based on IOS show statistically significantly better marginal and internal adaptation before cementation compared to conventional impression. However, the clinical evaluation showed similar marginal adaptation.

Clinical relevance

Crowns based on a fully digital workflow can provide clinically acceptable marginal adaptation, comparable to crowns based on CI.

Keywords

Dental impression technique Intraoral scanning Digital impression CAD/CAM Dental crown Clinical accuracy 

Notes

Funding

The work was supported by the Faculty of Health and Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Compliance with ethical standards

This clinical trial was approved by The Regional Scientific Ethical Committee, (reference number 44868) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and internationally accepted guidelines for RCT, including the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y (2009) A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 28(1):44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Noort R (2012) The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 28(1):3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P (2016) Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 20(2):291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA (2014) Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(10):1113–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H (2014) Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 14:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J (2016) Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont 25(4):282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS (2015) Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 114(3):403–406 e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joda T, Bragger U (2016) Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(12):e185–e1e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F (2018) Evaluation of operating time and patient perception using conventional impression taking and intraoral scanning for crown manufacture: a split-mouth, Randomized Clinical Study. Int J Prosthodont 31(31):55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grasso JE, Nalbandian J, Sanford C, Bailit H (1985) Effect of restoration quality on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 53(1):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobs MS, Windeler AS (1991) An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent 65(3):436–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lang NP, Kiel RA, Anderhalden K (1983) Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins. J Clin Periodontol 10(6):563–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA (1971) The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 131(3):107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2015) Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 19(8):2027–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradies G (2016) Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig 20(9):2403–2410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Molin M, Karlsson S (1993) The fit of gold inlays and three ceramic inlay systems. A clinical and in vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand 51(4):201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kastner K, Walter MH (2000) Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent 84(4):419–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD (1989) Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 62(4):405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zeltner M, Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Ozcan M, Hammerle CH, Benic GI (2017) Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent 117(3):354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A (2017) Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 118(1):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uhm SH, Kim JH, Jiang HB, Woo CW, Chang M, Kim KN et al (2017) Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard. Dent Mater J 36(1):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carbajal Mejia JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H (2017) Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 118(3):392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M, Kuhn K, Sichwardt V, Wostmann B et al (2016) Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Aappl Oral Sci 24(1):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodiger M, Heinitz A, Burgers R, Rinke S (2017) Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions-a clinical comparative study. Clin Oral Investig 21(2):579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj C (2017) Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. J Prosthet Dent 118(3):386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Su TS, Sun J (2016) Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression. J Prosthet Dent 116(3):362–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laurent M, Scheer P, Dejou J, Laborde G (2008) Clinical evaluation of the marginal fit of cast crowns—validation of the silicone replica method. J Oral Rehabil 35(2):116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Dentistry and Oral HealthAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations